No worries, we are all just taking part in an online discussion. Don’t think the notion of wasting time is relevant.
I am arguing that sex is binary. That there are edge cases, but these exceptions largely prove the rule.
The use of universal should have been “close to universal” or “very close to universal”
Beyond fungi, there are many other examples as well, single strand DNA life and so on.
What’s this got to do with anything? What element of what I wrote in this thread makes you believe I didn’t know this?
I will add that what you reference actually confirms that the binary sex model is a universal element of life as we know it.
Let me take a step back for a second.
We are not discussing the strategies used by the far right to demonize trans folk (or anyone else). We are discussing something completely different that has no bearing on the strategies used by the far right. What will me moving away from what you call “my ideal” change in this world?
Let’s say we have some deus ex machina method to close the discussion around the nature of sex and make everyone believe that sex is a spectrum.
Do you really think this will magically get rid of transphobia? I would even go as far as saying a lot of the people who claim to be concerned about “trans issues” don’t actually care about them and they are simply being led by oligarch propaganda. And oligarch propaganda will leverage anything that they think will have an impact.
So how will me rejecting my understanding of genetic bio-chemical reproduction (as is proven by hundreds of millions of years of life on earth and the a reproductive framework that span millions of species) change anything?
Do you see what I am getting at?
I strongly disagree. I am only happy for people to be the best version of themselves and to feel comfortable in their skin.
Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.
I already mentioned that there are edge cases. Edge cases do not discredit foundational frameworks that define reality.
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework. This has been true for hundreds of millions of years. There is no such things as a triple helix or quadruple helix in terms of reproduction. Even trees and plants have a binary sex.
You claim that this is something I want to be true. I would argue the same (on a vice versa basis) for you and that you’re framing the discussion using irrelevant examples (how is a morphological change in sex even relevant to what we are discussing).
It’s far closer to a binary distribution than a bi-modal distribution. You can be pedantic, but that’s not a real arguement. I admitted there are edge cases.
This is not tied to pure outcomes and is derived from actual earth bio-chemistry.
There is no triple helix or quadruple helix as a foundational system of genetic bio-chemical reproduction.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
With all due respect, sex is not a spectrum.
It’s a clearly a binary. Yes, there are many exceptions and edge cases, but they are all based around a universal binary biological structure.
You don’t have say three distinct sexes required for reproduction outside of sci-fi. It is a binary with some edge cases and variations in how exactly the two parts of the binary interact.
and don’t get me started back in the days when every fandom had a dozen sites which all hated each other for vague and extremely personal reasons.
Oh man, this brings me back.
Remember the time in the late 90s and early 2000s when even a niche topics had like 3-4 large community sites with active forums. More popular topics could easily have like 10-20 communities.
And there was a lot of drama both within and between communities.
It’s kind sad that we lost this, although lemmy is a solid modern alternative, just needs much more users. Enough users for even niche topics to have multiple active communities with their own spin/focus on a given topics.
On the plus side, I am glad I got to experience the early pre-corporate internet. It was good times.
Agreed. You do have to shut down nazis/tankies etc. Zero tolerance policy even.
I am just saying look at it from the mods point of view, they do have to act upon their “no dehumanization” rule or they risk that rule not having any meaning.
Consider a situation where some tankie is ranting about how Trump supporters are capitalist roachs and lack humanity. You don’t want that shit in any community.
Agreed regarding Trump and dehumanization. I am Ukrainian, so you can imagine what I think of Trump, his goons and even those who support Trump (Americans or otherwise).
I am almost arguing from a devil’s advocate point of view.
To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if the mods at a high level support your views (in a different more nuanced phrasing), but you do have to have a modicum of fairness when approaching a rule like “no dehumanization”. The style/tone of your comment did conflict with the rules, that’s all I am saying.
Ban is definitely over the top.
Sometimes less is more with respect to rhetoric (not saying there aren’t situations were you have to be clear and uncompromising in your statements).
This seems like a 50:50 type scenario. I personally wouldn’t bother with moderation unless someone complained, but a good faith arguement can be made that you were breaking the rules.
While the current US adminstration is arguably somewhere between proto-fascist and fully fascist (there is lots more room for democratic and human rights backsliding), I can see how dehumanisation can be seen as a legitimate moderation reason for your comments.
Maybe mbin or piefed? They don’t exactly seem to have 1:1 copies among oligarch run services.
Crypto is all about shilling bags or criminal activity.
What’s going on with SDF?
Don’t post or engage with ML. Problem solved.
That instance is infested with scumbag tankies who white wash genocide, oppose self-determination for independent countries and support imperialism and authoritarianism.
Facebook - Zuckerberg and his role in enabling ethnic cleansing in Myanmar
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/facebook-myanmar-zuckerberg.html
How so? And what do you define as “antisemitism” and “antisemitic censorship”?
It depends how you use these platforms. On reddit, I go to a few somewhat niche subs (via a direct bookmark link) so I don’t see any content outside of those specific niches.
On lemmy, I use this account for news/global politics, but I also have an alt where I only access content from subscribed communities and there is minimal politics.
It seems like the only semi-viable alternative to oligarch run social networks.
I am not American, but the behaviour exhibited by oligarchs such as Zuckerberg/Musk (and these are just the ones that get in the news) is not at all surprising.
I strongly disagree (btw I am not downvoting you). Let me try and explain; I am going to go on a bit of a tangent, but it’s all relevant to our discussion.
I am from Ukraine. I have exposure to the local LGBT community and generally I try to stay informed on social and governmental attitudes to LGBT rights in Ukraine.
I interact with queer Ukrainians (not trans Ukrainians though) who don’t speak English and aren’t exposed to the arguments and polemics inherent to English-language debates on the topic at hand (they have their own interests and priorities that reflect local realities).
My argument is that the discussion around the nature of sex is irrelevant to promoting transphobia. The far right (English-language or otherwise) will find something else to latch on to. I would even go as far as saying that the polemics of transphobia, in say the US, are largely defined by the propaganda strategies used by local oligarchs to maintain their economic power and enable corruption. On a certain level, the only reason why the American far right is even involved in transphobia, is because they are exposed to transphobic propaganda polemics pushed by local criminal/oligarch groupings. This is not unique to the US.
I would also argue that many in the Ukrainian LGBT community are more likely to agree with my interpretation than what you are arguing for (keep in mind that discussions around the extent to which sex is binary is not something that Ukrainian homophobes/transphobes engage in). Economic issues, the role of corruption, russian imperialism are far more important for the local LGBT community in shaping their worldview.
Now while I have exposure to the Ukrainian LGBT community, I don’t have any trans friends, so I am less confident about making statements regarding the attitudes of the Ukrainian trans community.
That being said, how do you know that Ukrainian trans folks (e.g. people who don’t speak English) completely agree with your interpretation on the interplay of “sex discussions” and transphobia?
Forget Ukraine, what about say Pakistan or India or Uzbekistan?
You claim that I want “purity of ideas” and an easy and neat framework. I could argue the same for you!
You are welcome to disagree with me and say I am wrong in my understanding of the binary nature of sex. It is what is. I am just trying to show you that my worldview has a level of nuance and it’s not a mere matter of wanting “neat solutions” while ignoring the weaponization of this discussion by the English-speaking far right.